Why the proposed change?

After considerate deliberation, volunteers and professionals recommended the change to “reinforce the connection between all of our BSA programs and the mission of the Boy Scouts of America.”

Because “it is the mission of the BSA ‘to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law,’ it is the task forces’ judgment that this goal is best achieved if all programs use the Scout Oath and Law as their primary statement of values and ideals.”

When would it take effect?

If approved, the change would take effect during the 2015-2016 program year.

“The recommendation has been reviewed and endorsed by the national support committee responsible for program content changes. It has also been discussed and endorsed by the national officers of the BSA, and Wayne Perry has directed that the recommendation be brought forward to the National Executive Board at its October 2012 meeting,” according to the Scout Wire post (link below).

I don’t particularly like this suggestion for two basic reasons: First, we have three different programs for a reason, the cognitive abilities for a seven year old Tiger are vastly different than a 20 year old Venturer. This change seems to come from a need to explain ourselves to the general public rather than program needs.

As I have read the comments below, many cite the differences in Cub scouts but neglect the Venturing program. This of course leads to my next issue, this decision looks to have been made without input from our National Cabinet of Venturing officers. We have a group of really outstanding young men and women who are capable of having very nuanced conversations, and making very informed decisions regarding their program.

How can we prepare youth to be informed citizens and leaders ( from the BSA vision statement) if we don’t even include them in running the program that is for them?

I believe the Venturing oath is a better tool for reflecting the program of Venturing. It needs to be discussed before the National Venturing Cabinet. It’s their program.

Bryant — actually, the story was “broke” during the “Key 5″ session at PTC on the Sunday night of “Commissioners’ Week” (July 15th), and there have been extremely “active” discussion on this change on the Venturing YahooGroup and a number of others.

Personally, I support the change, and believe this is the right move … however, there are many who are not so supportive.

The Cub Scout Promise has very similar wording to the Scout Oath, only at a level that First Graders can understand. This similarity is a strong connection to Boy Scouts. I have be a Cubmaster for five years (not consecutively). First-Graders have enough trouble learning the Promise. They generally cannot even read it when they start First Grade. (It worked well when they obtained Bobcat at the end of First Grade years ago.) I do not think this proposal takes age-appropriateness into consideration as it should. Fourth- and Fifth-Graders have enough trouble learning and understanding the Scout Oath and Law. I think it should be left as it is now.

Why not update the Character Connections of Cub Scouting to introduce the Scout Law and Oath? This sounds like we’re moving towards the global Scouting movement goal of dissolving BSA/GSA into one single group.

I doubt the GSA would merge with the BSA. The GSA accepts atheists while the BSA does not, and they are open to gay and lesbian leaders.I’d think we’d have a better shot at merging with Heritage Girls than the GSA.

Slightly off topic from the original post, but back in 2009 I heard that the BSA was considering a parallel program for girls (Cubs and Scouts) with the ability of girls to earn Eagle. Earlier this year I got an on-line survey from either Harris Polls or Knowledge Networks asking me if I would support the BSA doing a parallel program for girls. As an Eagle, a Scoutmaster and a dad of an Eagle and the dad of a former Girl Scout I’d love to see a program for girls that mirrors the BSA. The GSA sadly does not one of my daughters “outings” was an overnight stay at the Embassy Suites, another was a night in a cabin at a local State Park, it started after school on Friday and ended before lunch on Saturday.

With respect to the original blog post by Bryan, I think it is an excellent idea.

American Heritage Girls is a program that mirrors BSA, quite nicely. And no hotel camping or mall sleep overs! Check out the Outdoor Skills, Outdoor Cooking, Fire Building and Fire Safety, Camping, and any of our other “outdoor” badges. The skills all build on each other from a young age. The older girls learn the same skills as BSA. Take a look at the requirements for Stars and Stripes and you will find that it is as involved and difficult (if not more) as the BSA Eagle. AHG is also using BSA training both online and “in person”. Before reinventing the wheel, take a look at AHG. http://www.ahgonline.org

Saw this on Facebook yesterday and it’s very intriguing. My first reaction is it would do away with the “cross-over” concept from Cubs to Boy Scouts. I believe it is this “transition” where we lose a good number of Scouts. If there is no transition and the program is seen as one continuous unit, Tiger to Eagle, then a unified system might help in retention.

On the other hand, these are heavy concepts for a first to third graders. Not that starting concepts this young is a bad thing. But it also does away with my 3 favorite 3 words in Scouting: “Do Your Best.” I even like it over “Be Prepared” in many ways because it contains so many values and principles of the Scouting system.

The main Venturing article mentions further studies with child psychologists and other young-child related issues that need to be fleshed out first. I look forward to seeing these studies.

There might be other ways to integrate it into the Cub Program without doing a complete change. For example, the Cub Promise is already a simpler version of the Boy Scout Promise so maybe the Laws and Mottoes could be modified accordingly.

This will be a fun discussion and I’m glad to see that BSA continually reevaluates itself.

For Venturing, I see no issue and think it’s a great idea for that program.

The proposed changes would maintain the Cub Scout motto, sign, salute, and handshake. It would only affect the Oath and revise the Core Values of Cub Scouting to align with the 12 points of the Scout Law.

Mike, I too, like the idea of consistent statements of values across the entire Scouting experience. As an educator, I truly believe that we can have developmentally appropriate discussions with everyone from Tiger Cubs, to Eagle Scouts, to Venturing Silver awardees about the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law. They are sophisticated concepts worthy of years of study, and just like we teach children about value with pennies and quarters, and then progress to savings accounts and credit cards over time, we can teach Scouting values in an incremental process.

“Do Your Best” and “Be Prepared,” as the respective Cub and Scout mottoes, are apparently recommended to remain intact. And you’re right, together these two simple mottoes do encompass a lot of what we need to think about as Scouts.

I hope that ultimately there will be a full Tiger to Eagle to Venturing Silver program, but there’s a long way to go on that. The BSA will likely need to align Venturing with the Rover program used in the rest of the world, and stop it from competing with Boy Scouts. Venturers should be helping lead Cub Scout dens and packs, in addition to their own program of adventure, creating a full circle of effect. (Believe it: 18-25 year olds LOVE working with elementary students!) There’s a lot of opportunity here, but it will require engaging some pedagogy experts and people knowledgeable in student learning theory.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, Daniel. This is exactly what our panel of educators and child development experts (all Scouters) concluded – just as we have tools to help younger Scouts build familiarity with the current statements of the ideals in Cub Scouts (or the Pledge of Alligence for an other example), we can do the same for the Scout Oath and Law. This will give them a longer window during which to build familiarity, understanding and behavior.

While they’re at it, will the official definition for the points of the Scout Oath and Law be updated and clarified too? What is the point in having a single Oath and Law if Scouts can’t agree on what they mean?

Yesterday I had an Eagle Scout tell me that A Scout is Reverent meant “to follow God and his teachings.” I’m an Eagle Scout too, and I thought Scouts agreed that Reverent meant “A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.”

Maybe the definitions are okay, but we need to do a better job teaching them?

“A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion,” from that post. I agree that Leaders (both adult & youth) should teach those things better, and it is part of the joining requirement (Scout, #7) and Tenderfoot requirements (#7) that they understand and are able to explain in their own words what those things mean.

I have brought this up at our district committee meeting and both cub and venturing folks were VERY displeased with this development. My crew members exhibited a negative response to the oath change. I personally think the change is the wrong move for Scouting in general. I feel certain the national ‘experts’, consultants, etc. will discount this type of feedback. We are in the field working with the youth. Thank you for allowing me to comment.

The comments here are actually the first positive responses I’ve seen to the proposal. And a majority of the responses are positive, which I was not expecting. I am personally undecided, leaning against the change, but back home, that puts me being one of the few people to bring up any pro-change reasons…

I think this is a great idea for Venturers, but as a Cub Scout leader I am wondering whether the verbiage used in the Scout Oath and Law is a little abstract for younger boys. I’m sure there was a reason why a separate Promise and Law were developed in the first place–perhaps that rationale would be helpful determining whether the Oath and Law should be uniform across the board.

I agree, Dawn. I recall that an important factor in Cub Scouting was to keep things age-appropriate. The Scout Oath and Law may be a bit too big of a bite to expect Cubs to take in terms of memorizing, and more importantly, internalizing.

I had forgotten about the Sea Promise (I don’t go to many Sea Scouting events). I think the plan is to change everything to the Boy Scout Oath and Law. I think a partial change would be the worst outcome – because some groups would have the change while others get to stay different.

Can we get a post with the Cub Scout Promise, Law of the Pack, Venturing Oath, and Venturing Code alongside the Scout Oath and Law? That way we can see all six things at once, and the fact that I’m blanking on the Cub Scout Promise…

As a Venturer, I believe that America’s strength lies in our trust in God and in the courage, strength, and traditions of our people.
I will, therefore, be faithful in my religious duties and will maintain a personal sense of honor in my own life.
I will treasure my American heritage and will do all I can to preserve and enrich it.
I will recognize the dignity and worth of all humanity and will use fair play and goodwill in my daily life.
I will acquire the Venturing attitude that seeks truth in all things and adventure on the frontiers of our changing world.

I, Fred Flintsone, promise On my honor
to do my best, to do my duty I will do my best to do my duty
to God and my country, to God and my country,
to help other people, and to obey the Scout Law;
and to obey the Law of the Pack to help other people at all times,
and to keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Now that the two of them are side by side, which would be easier for a 6 year old Cub Scout to remember?

Although I’m in favor of the concept, Especially for Venture Scouts, I think it goes a bit overboard for Cubs. Let’s face it, 6 and 7 year olds have trouble remembering to tie their shoes, let alone memorizing the Scout Oath and Law. (and just think, we’re considering 5 year olds in the future). Internationally, Beavers, Cubs and Wolf Cubs have their own special promise. It should remain so in the BSA. The Scout Oath and Law should be learned as the Cub progresses to Webelos.

Well, first off your terminology is incorrect, Venture Scouts are like an older a scout patrol, members of a Venturing Crew are called Venturers, I believe that the Scout Oath and Law are easier to remember, but I personally like having the different levels of oath and law.

Interesting, I *think* I’m for this. I believe the Cub Scout Oath and Boy Scout Oath could easily converge. However, the Law of the Pack and the Boy Scout Law are rather different in scope. The LoP defines the boys’ role (follow, help, give) but most importantly that the Pack is “to help the boy grow”. BSL are character traits that we all model our lives around (which is applicable to the CS also). I am not against this at all. Just curious what do you do with the emphasis on “the Pack helps the Cub Scout grow”? I have no experience with Venturing, so I’ll stay out of that…

I, Fred Flintsone, promise
to do my best, to do my duty
to God and my country,
to help other people,
and to obey the Law of the Pack

On my honor
I will do my best to do my duty
to God and my country,
and to obey the Scout Law;
to help other people at all times,
and to keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Now that they’re both easier to read (sorry about last)…same question. Which would be easier for a 7 year old Tiger Cub to remember? Or an 8 year old Wolf?

All of our Tigers were 6 years old at the beginning of last program year… You might be able to get Cub Scout-age boys to memorize the Oath and Law, but I don’t know if they will really understand them. I do like the idea of changing the Character Connections to the points of the Scout Law, however…

I’m nearly 40 and can still recite both the oath & the law almost without thinking about nearly 20 years after my last interaction with any scouts. They are pretty powerful things and still dictate who I am in a HUGE way. I’ll always be a supporter of both.

I don’t really agree with this as although the programs ARE indeed linked, they are also distinctively different.
Cub Scouts are run by Adults, Boy Scouts are led by the youth.
I’m a HUGE proponent of the BS interacting on a regular basis with the CS, primarily through Den Chiefs, but they are vastly different.
After all, Aren’t the CSs taught the Scout Oath and Law in Webelos II???
IF everything works correctly, the BSs will make a very good and strong presence simply by their role as Den Chiefs.
DCs should always talk with the CSs about what the BSs do to keep the “spark” alive in the CSs.
I have looked into the eyes of CSs at a Cross-Over as they take the Scout Oath for the first time as a Boy Scout…and it is a good thing to see; it is a definate step forward for the Youth and it’s an opportunity to celebrate their decision to move forward.
It’s just my opinion, but I’d keep them seperate…

Very, very bad idea. So many other concepts to tackle why here. As a field leader, I work very hard to speak to my audience. I know my audience and have had the same audience for several years. I have had times when I was able to speak with more sophistication to my audience, but the changes presented are not what my Scouts would have learned at 6 and 7 years old. My 8 year olds started with bits and pieces of Scout Oath and began jumbling everything into a scouting mash. Why not concentrate on working to create more fun in Cub Scouting so that we can retain more instead of making it more difficult in a time when we compete with so many other programs. I think some committees might have too much time on their hands and need to go dig earthworms with my den. That might reinforce that Cub Scouting isn’t about one unified program, it’s about making better kids who want to stay scouting and not memorizing.

While I’m sure someone thought it would be a good idea, I sure as heck hope they’re paying attention to the wider world.

This is wrong – just plain and simple wrong. One program doesn’t work for the BSA – that’s why we’ve got Cubs, Boy Scouts, and Venturing. Why give them the same promise?
Little kids understand the Cub Scout Oath – the Boy Scout Oath is too much for most of them. 6 or 7 year olds aren’t going to understand concepts like Honor and Duty and many of the Scout Law.

What we need is a continuum – start simple to keep them engaged, then introduce these concepts – age 8-10 is a good place for them.

As a Den Leader, we said the Cub Scout Oath – and when they became Webelos, I started having them say the Boy Scout Oath and Laws. When they sat down with the Scoutmasters they talked to prior to their transition into troop life, I was told that they had a more complete understanding of the concepts than most boys the Scoutmasters had spoken with – including some in their troops!

If we introduce the Boy Scout Oath at the age of 6 or 7, these kids are going to memorize it and repeat it – and NOT live it – and THAT is the PURPOSE of the Oath and Laws – to provide them tools to live by, not words to regurgitate.

As an Eagle Scout, a former Den Leader, and a Troop Committee member, this is just plain wrong. PLEASE don’t do it.

Seems people are split on the concept, as they should be, it is not easy to bring about change and some will fight it no matter what. The Cub Scout Oath has changed before, and everything did not go down hill. I can understand what some people claim that 7 and 8 year-old youth could have a difficult time with this, however I believe you do not give them enough credit. Ask them some of the specifications on a video game they love, they memorize those easily enough.

By the way in 1943 the Cub Scout Oath was:

I___Promise to do my best,
to be square,
and to obey the law of the cub pack.

The idea of having separate oaths (like the idea of having separate uniforms…) is to distinguish the programs.

We accuse some in our programs of “burning them out” before they reach Boy Scouting; or “burning them out” before reaching Venturing.
This, to ME, is an excellent “exhibit A” of such movement toward burnout.

We ask a 7 or 8 year old to read the words out aloud to the Scout Oath and Law. Then perhaps at 10 or so, we have him to “repeat it from memory”. Then again during his entire Boy Scouting experience, we ask him to say it over and over. Then when he becomes a Venturer, we ask him to repeat it. That’s like what — 14 years (between 7 and 21) — worth of saying the same oath — as a youth member?

I’m telling all of you: the BSA is going to end up with ONE UNIFORM and ONE OATH AND LAW for everyone, and eventually one cannot distinguish right away the Cub Scouts from the Venturers (some may say that we’re already at that point…*smiling*). The only folks who might escape this are the Sea Scouts.

I think that this was based on some good intentions — the idea that all of our programs are guided by the Scout Oath and Law; and that unless one knows what it is our programs are based upon, one cannot carry through implementing the Scouting ideals.

Having everyone to use ONE Oath or Promise and one set of laws — no. I say “leave it alone.”

I feel that there is a difference between the Pledge of Allegience and the repeating of the various Scouting oaths. No, I don’t tire of repeating the Pledge but I can count on the number of times I have done so in the past month. I have a little bit of a higher average than most because of what I do for a living — go to a lot of meetings which start with those great words.

The difference to me, comes in why we are abandoning all of a sudden the Cub Scout Promise and the Venturing Oath for the Boy Scout Oath. I can understand “getting everyone on the same sheet of music” but this basically applies to the adults and not the youth of the programs. Each program is (supposed) to be distinctive and different from one another.

We are ALL Americans, but we are NOT all “Boy Scouts” or Boy Scouting leaders. Some of us are Cub Scouts and Cub Scouters; others of us are Venturers and Venturing leaders (and for the record, please note that NOWHERE in the description of Venturers nor their adult advisors and mentors is the word “Scout” mentioned except for the fact that Venturing is a program for older youth — male and female — administered by the Boy Scouts of America). For that reason alone — unless the 411 Task Force wants to refer to ALL youth members as “Scouts” regardless of program — we should keep the three separate oaths as they are and leave the interpretation of why we use the Scout Oath and Law as our overriding foundation for everything we do!

Mike W, why is one uniform bad? What principle are you appealing to as if it’s wrong to have one uniform. I personally wouldn’t want to see one uniform. I like the variety. But you make no reason why one uniform is a bad thing.

Learning one law/oath isn’t necessarily a bad thing either. If a kid burns out of Scouting because he doesn’t like saying a phrase over and over again, then I’d say whoever is leading that program isn’t doing a good job. Repetition of a good thing is a good thing to have, IMHO.

Mike: The entire Scouting program is based on “symbolic progression”. You crawl, walk, run. Having one uniform to be used for the entire program makes it easy on the Supply Group — one basic color, one basic style. It does nothing for the people wearing it — even if for adults, all we really change are shoulder loops and neckerchiefs with slides.

I would not want 100 years of Scouting history overall and 75 to 80 years of Cub Scouting history to go away simply because our national board of directors can’t find a better way to have the public and all members understand the principles under which the program is based upon – than to have all of us say or be aware of the Scout Oath.

And why not the Venturing Oath — it is a bit more encompassing?

No, having separate promises and oaths — age appropriate (never mind that in doing their research, the task force found that Cub Scouts stating or memorizing the Scout Oath and Law is not “under their mental or physical skill sets”) — is the better way to go.

I have been saying the Scout Oath and Law since 10. That’s 43 years’ worth of raising my hand in the Sign of the Scout and repeating those words — together or by myself. I don’t feel that my brain’s gone to mush (or maybe it has *smiling* and I don’t know it yet…). But I had three years of learning and understanding the Cub Scout Promise and the Law of the Pack, simple principles of fair play, loyality and unity.

And if you pushed me, I could recall the Explorer Code also (which much of it is used by the Venturing program today).

If our National Executive Board wants the public and all of our members to understand what kind of a program we are running — they should authorize local Councils to make each volunteer, professional and family to sign something stating that they understand that Scouting is based upon, and will be guided by, the principles found in the Scout Oath and Law.

Ooops…we already have this. It’s on the application to become a volunteer, on the professional agreement, and on the applications for Cub Scout, Boy Scout/Varsity Scout, and Venturer/Sea Scout.

It became mush (at least mine) when we raised our right hands and said
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic; and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I will also follow the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me according to law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Although I disagree with Jdominik that this is “just plain and simple wrong” I do think he’s hit the nail on the head of a Scouting needs to be “continuum.” Cub, Boy and Venturing seem disjointed even though they are under the BSA umbrella and maybe that’s the intent of this proposal.

As I mentioned earlier, the Cub Promise is very similar to the Boy Scout Promise. It’s not dumbed down, it’s made more simple for the age group. Why isn’t it possible to align these 3 groups a little more so that the system is more integrated? They system may not “be broke” but it might certainly could do better.

I don’t think that younger boys not understanding every part of the Boy Scout Oath is that big of an issue. Five and six year olds aren’t going to grasp half of whatever we teach them because, well, they’re 5 and 6 year olds. But just like you didn’t understand the Pledge of Allegiance in first grade like you do now, you still know it VERY well because you started so young.

As RLester1967 pointed out, the Cub program is adult led and the boy scouts are Scout led. I believe the Webelos program should be the beginning of this transition process with adult leaders bringing Webelos into the patrol method more and more. Many Scouts leave between Cubs and Webelos BECAUSE the Cub system still has the adults doing the work and boys becoming “bored with scouting.” Without instilling ownership in the boys at an age when they start wanting ownership, we’re bound to lose them to sports and other activities.

4th and 5th graders are more sophisticated in some ways in the 2000’s than they were in in 1980s and earlier. Heck, my son might know more about Powerpoint than I do. The Cub program might need to change to adjust to new eras and a healthy discussion is a lot better than knee-jerk reacting with “I hate it” or even “I love it” comments.

As a Cubmaster and former Den Leader (and Tiger den leader), I think the CS and BS oaths are similar enough that Cubs wouldn’t have a problem with using the BS version.

I don’t know if the younger one especially could memorize the BSL, as they have enough of a problem remembering the Law of the Pack (which many of them still have trouble grasping the meaning of, too).

However, I think moving the Character Connections to the points of the BSL is a fantastic idea! Individually, they’re just as easy to understand (and explain, for adults) as the points of the BSL, and it would reinforce the learning of the law (as currently, the character connections don’t mean much in the aggregate — to the boys or adults). It would also reinforce the connection between Cubs and Boy Scouts. I’m for it.

I appreciate everyone’s comments. As a 411 Team member and the Personal Fitness Track Chair I have had the honor of a front row seat for this effort. We recognize and embrace age appropriate instruction and this change, if adopted, will be taught to reflect various levels of understanding. The concept of Akela is not going away and the Character Connections would be molded to reflect the 12 points of the Scout Law. We’re looking at many things during this process, most of all continuity of message, meeting the AIMs of Scouting and improving Cub Scout to Boy Scout retention. We are not looking to streamline Scouting into one continuous program. As an active Cub Scouter with two boys in the program I live the Scouting life. These concepts are not beyond the grasp of young boys – at least not any more than the current Promise and Law of the Pack. I’ve always found the Law of the Pack confusing – not just to kids, but leaders and parents as well. 12 points around which you can build understanding over the years I believe is the way to go. We are graced will several educators on the 411 Team, including language specialists, and they have concluded that while understanding will deepen over time the base concepts of the Oath and Law are suitable for understanding, and certainly memorization, at age 6. One big plus I believe is less memorization and quicker infusion into Scouting program when a boy crosses over. He will already understand the core values of Scouting at a time when he’s already switching to varying age patrols and boy led units which can be intimidating for some boys. We welcome all opinions. As for the make-up of 411, please know that all 40+ of us are active volunteer Scouters from across the nation, all with decades of Scouting service. I applaud BSA for choosing from among the rank and file for this effort.

Not at all Steve, but we’ve been at this for about 22 months. We’ve discussed, debated, polled, surveyed, researched and focus grouped a lot of things. As one of those who will have to implement any changes I take none of this lightly. It’s a recommendation and is subject to the vote of the National BSA Board. Do you have some constructive criticism?

Mr Armstrong,
I mean you no disrespect by this.
I am one of the unfortunate volunteers who have been caught-up in the Michigan “Area 2 Project.”
This project went through many, many months of discussion, debate and attempted explinations.
I’m not saying that the Project is completely “bad nor is it completely “good.”
What I do believe is that the deciding group should have included more people who have their feet on the ground as volunteers.
I went to a couple of meetings for this which were intended to answer questions, and I had no questions answered…I heard a good many “feel-good” statements, but nothing that clearly explained anything.
When they showed a video which was intended to be “Fair and Balanced” it was neither…Therre were -0- opposing opinions.
This is what was shown to the Charter Orgs before they voted on the merger…IF I were to only see this, I would have voted yes also.
Unfortunately, I took a more active look at things, and I was very disappointed with the lack of information.
I’m not saying this is the same, what I am saying is that without the majority of people being “on the ground”, there are a great many people who think that everyone really wants to be a part of something greater; unfortunately many do not want to participate.
I am currently volunteering with 2 Troops [full-time], a Venture Crew, and I stop by the local Packs on several occasions each year just to keep in contact; but that’s just me. Many of the people in my area who do this much are either retired or are BSA Pros.
They also run many Polls and surveys during the Area 2 Project…which makes sense, if the right people are polled and surveyed.
Again, I mean you no disrespect nor do I doubt your intent…I am just wondering if the correct people have been polled.

None taken RLester1967, I welcome your inquiry. I can assure you the that 411 has made the most extensive use of national polling, focus groups and outside resources who are experts in various fields. As someone with a 25+ year background in survey research for my real job I’m confident it’s been done in a scientifically meaningful and accurate way and would not be shy about raising objects if I felt it wasn’t. It’s been fascinating measuring 35 years as a Scout & Scouter against scientific research. Affirms somethings, makes you think on others and provides genuine surprises on others. The BSA research has been tremendously instructive. It’s not the only source of knowledge, however. We’re using the personal experience of team members, the expertise of child behavior consultants, the traditions of Scouting and 102 years of success. We’ve completed the evaluation phase. Now we begin the program design phase after which any changes will be tested in real units with real Scouts before being considered as a permanent change to Scouting. It’s a slow, in-depth and deliberate process. Every phase adds more volunteers and is constantly evaluated. I’m confident that the end result will be an improvement and an update for the nation’s most successful youth organization.

Scott, I would like to thank you, the task force team and Bryan for putting this information out as it develops. It will allow us Scouters to absorb it and give feedback. I hope the rest of the 411 task force teams to the same. In this Information Age, it is really the way to go!

I appreciate that Bill. The 411 is all one Team (organized into 5 content area tracks), tasked with evaluating the current BSA for “Relevant & Dynamic Programming” and ensuring that current advancement meets the AIMs of Scouting. We are very cognizant of maintaining the traditions of Scouting and as experienced and active Scouters, are not tempted to change for the sake of change. So much of what we do in Scouting is excellent, but we’re taking an honest and deliberate look at the whole program to make sure what we’re offering the Boys is truly the best.

Personal Fitness has three core areas – physical fitness, nutrition and healthy habits. As the chair for this track were making sure our Scouts are active and making smart choices without the program becoming too “nannyish” and, as our track members constantly remind our colleagues, “keep it fun”.

Right on Mike Walton…
As a Venturing leader, I will tell you that there are huge differences between Boy Scouts and Venturing (and not just the presence of girls).
– Very few boys join Boy Scouts unless they were a cub first
– Venturing attracts substantial numbers of youth who were never Boy Scouts (including Girls). Some of these youth did not want to be Boy Scouts, but are attracted by the “action” of Venturing
– Boy Scouts are Boy led
– Venturing is Youth Led on STEROIDS, down to selecting the uniform that they want to adopt, managing their own finances, even establishing their own Crew Code of Conduct.
– Boy Scouts program is mostly defined for them, revolving to great extent around advancement
– Venturing program is defined by the Crew, and may or may not include “recognition” (not advancement)

Boy Scout Troops and Venturing crews have often had conflict, with Scoutmasters often viewing Venturing as “stealing their boys”, while Venturing leaders often view Venturing as a means to instill the values of Scouting in youth that missed out on Cubs or Boy Scouts, and a means to keep youth engaged in Scouting as long as possible.

Want to mess up a growing and healthy program? Try to push Venturing to be more like Senior Boy Scouts (e.g. the One Oath Initiative)

“Boy Scout Troops and Venturing crews have often had conflict, with Scoutmasters often viewing Venturing as “stealing their boys”,…”

It has been that way since the beginning of the Venturing program. Probably before then, but that is my experience. And it isn’t going to be fixed by the current Venturing program, because the truth of he matter is: Venturing by and large, with some rare exceptions, does steal boys from the troop program.

This hasn’t been our experience with our Troop and Crew. We have several Scouts that are cross registered, including my son. Most of our Scouts don’t bother with the Crew though. Our Crew is close to 50/50 male/female. Most of our Venture Crew members don’t do sports in HS, my son and one of the other Eagles that is cross registered both do HS Sports. Our Crew has picked up a few lapsed Scouts and one earned his Eagle through the Crew the same night as my son. By and large our Crew members are more interested in doing service projects and going on outings than advancement.

If anything a well run Crew will keep the 16-18 Scout interested in the program at a time when there are many HS activities to keep them busy. When I was a Scout it was hard to keep interested as some of my older friends aged out and went on to their post HS life. As a SM I look at the 14-15 year old boys to be the leaders of a Troop, if I can get a 16 or 17 year old to be SPL it is great but not typical.

I agree Jeff. My Crew is also about 50/50. Most of the Troop doesn’t want to have anything to do with us. Earning awards is the least of their concerns – they enjoy hanging out and doing things – if they learn something that is a bonus!

By the way, this defaulted to my pre-existing account which does not identify me. I’m Scott Armstrong from Syracuse, NY. Den Leader, former Pack Committee Chair, current Pack 244 Program Chair, District Cub Scout Activity Chair and VP/Executive Board of Longhouse Council. No “expert” in a distant tower here – just a well-intentioned Scouter dad & leader with 35 years of experience and loving every minute of it. The rest of the 411 team is similarly experienced or more, and all are active volunteer Scouters.

On the contrary, our research, surveys and experience show the Law of the Pack in particular to be confusing and difficult for youth to grasp and adults to explain. This isn’t a recommendation made in a vacuum.

I worry about teaching the Boy Scout Law to tiger cubs. It’s just a list which I have had difficulty memorizing myself, but I do like linking them to the character connections, that seems perfectly sensible. The Oath is so similar to the Promise that I’ve always thought it was silly to have the boys memorize two different things that say the same thing, so I am in favor of this change.

Okay so I’ll first admit that I haven’t read all the comments above me, maybe about half of them before I realized I just didn’t have the time. It seems like a lot of people enjoy this idea however I find myself not liking the ideas as much. Don’t get me wrong I am for anything that helps smooth the transition between the programs. If we can make it easier / more desirable to transition from cub scouts to boy scouts and encourage scouts to continue from boy scouts to venture scouts then that is a good thing. However I don’t think this is the right way to do it. Having the same pledges from one program to another just doesn’t seem right to me because each program is different. Cub Scouts focuses more on family building and fun. Scouts teaches you basic leadership and builds character. Venture scouts takes it up another notch and works on high adventure / more learning. (I’ve simplified things I know) and I just think that branding them all together isn’t the best thing to do.

Oh wait, I misspoke. It’s great. It’s great to make everything the same – they’re trying to get ‘morally straight’ into the Oath at every age level. (Sarcasm)

Kids need age specific programming and material. There’s no reason to do this, other than to push a moral prerogative that doesn’t represent the bulk of Scouting anymore (just a few dudes with no names that hide in a closet at National). That, and they’ll get to sell a WHOLE bunch of new handbooks.

Please DO NOT apply the Boy Scout code to Venturers – Crews are not Troops and most of my Crew anyway have not had experience with Boy Scouts. They do not mind being part of the BSA but it is funny hearing one my girls try to explain to an adult that she is a Boy Scout. If we are changing to “Scouts of America” and dropping the “Boy” then it makes sense – but until then let’s treat Boy Scouts and Venturers a separate entities.

My Crew are Venturers – plain and simple and that is what they like to be called. “Boy Scouts” only comes into the picture when people ask about Venturing because they are not familiar with the program.

They take great pride in calling themselves “Venturers” and sometimes will point out that Venturing is part of the BSA, but never will they refer to themselves as Venturing Scouts or anything like that (and many will correct the people who mislabel them a “Venture Crew”..

BTW, apologies to Kathleen, but I’m really careful to never refer to the young women in our crew as “girls” — not because it is a perjorative, but because I want to set an example for the young men in our crew…

“Kids need age specific programming and material. There’s no reason to do this, other than to push a moral prerogative that doesn’t represent the bulk of Scouting anymore (just a few dudes with no names that hide in a closet at National). ”

“A few dudes” (and dudettes) are not hidden in a closet at National. The 40 or so members of the 411 Task Force are publically noted — name and local Council — so there’s no “hiding” behind their recommendation. They made it on good faith, after doing a lot of research, reflecting on their own volunteer experiences and knowledge.

Some of US, however, feel, that even with all of their research and talking with field Scouters, that those recommedations is NOT a good one to give to the BSA’s National Executive Board. Some of us feel as you do, “stop tinkering with stuff which has been working for decades and still works today…”

Oh, and the National Executive Board members are also publically known. They are not in some closet at National either.

I don’t like this. To me, I feel that making all of our programs use the same codes and the same laws is doing nothing to affect continued interest and “symbolic progression” I talked about earlier — the idea that one starts out small, then with time and experience gains more confidence, and then moves onward with a lot of experience, knowledge and reflection to get through life. That is how we learn. That is how we relate with others. That is how life itself operates.

But to say that this was all conceived in a closed door session on the 2nd floor of the BSA’s National offices, well…no.

Mike, I was specifically referring NOT to the 411 group, but rather those behind the decision to continue to enforce Scouting’s stance on homosexuality. I don’t believe all of the 11 people who voted on that have come forward – if they have, it’s not ‘common’ public knowledge. Nor is their position on the previous issue.

Mike, I simply see this as a continuation of the position to keep those of the LGBT lifestyle out of Scouting. The idea is to spread the Boy Scout Oath and Law to Cubs and Venturers. You know. The one with that statement ‘morally straight’ whose definition has been twisted to mean whatever suits National?

I’m not sure we’ll see eye to eye on this, but I see this as one hand washing the other. Mr. Mazzuca has laid down a very hard stance on LGBT, and now we’re seeing the fallout.

Mike M., that’s probably a good idea. But I think you may be missing my point. My perception, and it could be just me, is that this is a move that is running in tandem with the current reinforcement of National’s policy on LGBT lifestyles. I would think that the idea of changing things – or moving to change this at this time, is both premature and ill-advised. Reviewing methods of teaching the tenets of Scouting should be done continuously. But to do so on the same time table as to what Scouting is going through now smacks of collusion and outright railroading a position that isn’t popular throughout the organization, particularly at the volunteer level.

I’m asking, suggesting, begging that this idea be shelved for a period of time. A year or three won’t make a difference. Then, when it’s clear it no longer isn’t a move that has the outward appearance of being politically motivated, it can be revisited.

Plus, to echo others, it’s not a system that seems to be broken. Why do we need to fix it?

Actually, please leave my comments on this discussion. If for no other reason than to point out that there is an alternative view to how this is being perceived.

Scott, I’ll let it go – I don’t agree with your stance and others, but I’ll walk away from promoting my view on this. But I do disagree with changing it for another reason – kids learn at different rates, and I think Cubs have a hard enough time learning what they need to learn without making the Oath they learn more complicated with words most fourth and fifth graders have difficulty translating into values they understand.

All: Since this is very recent news for most I thought you might like some context regarding the 411 Task Force. Here is the 12-minute video of the presentation made at the BSA National Annual Meeting in June 2012 by 411 Chairman Russ Hunsaker.

This presentation describes in detail the 411 mission and how it will impact the future of Scouting.

Hello Scott, I’m a Scout Volunteer in NJ. I was looking to message you but messaging is not available on your facebook page. Can you message me or request me as a friend. I have something I’d like to discuss with you regarding Dave Canterbury “Discovery’s co-host of Duel Survival” & Scouting.

“Close, Tony (Hooker, one of the regualars on Scouts-L) ; you wrote and suggested:

“If I was starting from scratch, I’d be all in favor of going back to something similar to the original Oath. Which is by itself, remarkably similar to the current cub scout Promise.

On my honor I promise that I will do my best:
To do my duty to God and my country;
To help other people at all times;
To obey the Scout Law.

(I Think this was the original BSA version, but I may be mistaken. It is very similar to the original one from BP, without the reference to God and King)”

It is…but it is not the original BSA version, adopted in 1911.

The original version added the phrase “and…to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.”

“I don’t know when the last section was added to the current BSA boy Scout oath, but it sounds like it was designed by committee before being bolted on to the end”

Well, it was done by committee, but a very small one according to those BSA scholars who study such things. It was Seton, Boyce and West who wanted the BSA’s oath to be more reflective of American ideals – and different from the British Boy Scout Oath which were being repeated by the first BSA Troops in the USA (because they didn’t have an “American Scout Oath” at the time). The three groups of words — “physically strong” (body), “mentally awake” (mind) and “morally straight” (spirit) were selected
to remind the American Boy Scout of his obligation to be of “sound body, mind and spirit” as he performed tasks associated with being a Boy Scout.

It was also intended to be like many other parts of the Scout Oath (three parts, three fingers of the Scout Sign, three original ranks (Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class), three higher recognitions (they were originally recognitions, later rank) — Life, Star (later those two to be reversed) and Eagle). Even the later Palms were selected in three stages: Bronze, Gold and Silver.

There’s something about “doing things in threes” all throughout the Scouting program (triangle selected for Vigil Honor, three “degrees” of OA membership…etc. etc…)

If this is being done to add “To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” to the Cub Scout Promise, why doesn’t BSA just say so? Why all the hand-wringing and academic talk? Or is that the way BSA National does things these days?

Keep in mind, Cwgmpls, I am NOT a part of the 411 Task Force. Until four years ago, I was unaware that such a group of Scouters working some really tough issues even existed!

However, I’m going to try to answer your (and some others’) concerns about “why are are wanting to do this change NOW?”

I agree with many others here that we don’t need to fix the three separate promises/oaths because we — the youth in the program nor most of the adults supporting the programs — don’t have a problem with this. WE KNOW that the basis for all of what we do and what we coach and mentor youth to do are found within the Boy Scout Oath or Promise and those 12 positive statements which describe what a Scout IS (the Scout Law).

However, the public and many families DO NOT UNDERSTAND why the Cub Scout Promise or the Venturing Oath says things which may be in crosshairs with what the Scout Oath and Law states (or means) (or is interpreted).

The Task Force’s recommendation — that all of our programs use the same Oath or Promise and Law — answers this. It’s NOT designed to “add body, mind and spirit” to either the Cub Scout nor the Venturing oaths — they have their OWN “body mind and spirit” parts…

and in Venturing, it is “…I will recognize the dignity and worth of all humanity and will use fair play and goodwill in my daily life.; I will acquire the Venturing attitude that seeks truth in all things and adventure on the frontiers of our changing world.”

By placing all of our programs under the same Oath and Law it provides some bit of commonity for all programs. I personally do not like this because as I’ve stated earlier, it doesn’t provide a “progression” as a youth member moves from the Cub Scouting “helping the Pack go and the Pack helping me to grow” through the Boy Scout/Varsity Scout “obeying the Scout Law” and all twelve of those laws; and onward to thinking about my place in this world as a Venturer, which “seeks truth in all things and adventure on the frontiers of our changing world.”

There’s a few “defending theorists” out there who are trying to twist this around to say “A HA!! THE REAL REASON WHY THE BSA WANTS TO DO THIS IS TO MAKE EVERYONE “MORALLY STRAIGHT”…. stupid.

First off, if this was to be approved by the BSA’s National Executive Board, it would occur in 2015 — *not anytime soon*. Second, if that was the purpose, a simple change to the Cub Scout and Venturing promises would do the trick quicker and with a lot less researching and talking with volunteers and families than they did. Finally, “morally straight” doesn’t mean “straight” as in “gay or straight” no matter how hard people try to thump a book over your head. It means that the Scout has a sense of purpose, a direction he wants to go in and some idea of why he wants to go into that direction. He has a group of morals — those which he developed himself — to guide himself with.

Like I said…I’m NOT on the 411 Task Force. I’m like you and many others out here, a volunteer working at the unit, District, Council and in my personal case, Region levels. I don’t like the recommendation and would rather that they limit it to the Character Connections program solely and leave the Oaths and Promises as is. There’s nothing wrong with them; they are simple to learn at each age grouping and they make sense. If parents and the community don’t understand why we do what we do…then it’s up to volunteers like you and me to help explain to them why we value so much the Scout Oath and Law as the underpinnings to all of our programs.

It’s taken BSA over 20 years to formulate its current statement regarding homosexual membership. Waiting a couple more years to have a consistent statement of values approved BSA’s National Executive Board doesn’t seem out of line with that pace.

You mentioned educators that have green lighted the unification of oaths/laws, and I find it hard to believe that those same educators think the scout oath/law are essentially first grade level. Otherwise the educators are saying Moby Dick is first grade appropriate literature if explained is first grade terminology.

I have an autistic child and two other handicapped children in my pack. Will there be age/mentality appropriate lesson plans for them as well? I hate being negative and hate to resist change, but why this change now with no appreciable, identifiable positive impact, only potential? I am an involved field leader trying to make a difference for my kids and the program as a whole. I live by the scout principles and my son does/will as well. Why are good leaders such as those herein being made to feel like we are just change resistant sticks in the mud?

Will – I will bring this to 411’s attention. Note that if this change occurs it is several years off. I’m reasonably confident that the BSA’s modifications for those with autism and other situational challenges will continue. I appreciate your situation as we have several autistic Cub Scouts in my own unit. As usual, the challenge to “make things happen” will inevitably fall to individual unit leaders. I’m not sure about your last sentiment and I hope I’m not the source of it. My efforts are an attempt to explain and answer questions, not pass judgement.

As for the educators, you are correct. No one is expecting to have a 6 year old Tiger Cub to grasp the Scout Law with the same level of understanding and introspection as a 17 year old Eagle. If passed, program will be developed to reflect age appropriate instruction and expectations.

Maybe you can point 411 to give a quick look to the comments on this post.

Side note: Your example compares a 6 year old Tiger Cub and a 17 year old Eagle as two extremes of age and maturity. A better comparison would have been with a 20 year old Silver Award Venturer. But then again, Venturing tends to be ignored by National and Councils in favor of the much larger Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting, so it’s really nothing new.

I would like to know why the BSA now thinks it must pasteurize and homogenize everything in sight. The Boy Scout Oath and Law have a 100+ year history; the Cub Scout Promise and Law of the Pack have an 80+ year history (except when they changed the ‘square’ line); Venturing not so much, but each program is designed to stand on its own, and the wording is tailored to be easily understood within the age ranges of the programs.

I’m certain the folks on the task force are a well-meaning group, but it sounds like by just taking on this debate they are catering to some individuals who may have some sort of unpublicized agenda. I have no proof of this, just a gut feeling.

What brought on this sudden urge to “unify” the Scouting program? The public (at least those who look up from their i-Pads once in a while) already perceives Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting and Venturing are all related programs, though for different age groups, regardless of the promises or oaths recited by the members.

It sounds like the same sort of chatter I heard a few years ago from the people who believed Scouting is not supposed to let the self-esteem of the boys be injured by telling them they didn’t do something well enough to earn a badge, that the very effort of trying to do something should be enough for praise and reward, aside from the fact so much of what we truly learn comes from failure.

Please don’t start homogenizing the different Scouting programs into one. I believe Baden-Powell created Boy Scouts, Wolf Cubs and Rovers with different aims, and different oaths. Do we really want to start messing around with the basic foundations of Scouting?

With the current wording serving BSA perfectly well for over 80 years, there has to be something more going on. BSA wouldn’t waste time and money tinkering around with trivialities when it has some big issues on its plate.

I get the feeling the BSA legal department senses something is brewing. BSA’s legal right to establish its own membership standards rests on the fact that BSA has an expressed statement of values that its members must adhere to. Clarifying that statement of values, and making it consistent across BSA, would go a long way to shoring up BSA’s defense against legal challenge related to its membership standards.

This seems like a clear, proactive move to clarify BSA’s standards as a legal defense. BSA doesn’t pay its lawyers for nothing.

Cwgmpls: You’re making an assumption that “something’s gone bad” for the this task force to make this recommendation. Nope. It has everything to do with Scouting’s FUTURE, not the present or its past.

The 411 Task Force was stood up, from my reading and undertstanding, in order to find ways to take the Boy Scouts of America far into the this century. It is more than a group of adults standing or sitting around saying “we need this” or “we don’t need that anymore.”

You stated in part:

“I get the feeling the BSA legal department senses something is brewing. BSA’s legal right to establish its own membership standards rests on the fact that BSA has an expressed statement of values that its members must adhere to. Clarifying that statement of values, and making it consistent across BSA, would go a long way to shoring up BSA’s defense against legal challenge related to its membership standards.”

If this was a legal matter, the BSA’s legal team would have made recommendations to make this change well before now. As you said, the BSA does have good lawyers.

However, this didn’t originate from the BSA’s law team. It originated after some studies and interviews and focus groups — and most of them occured in Quality Councils with strong Scouting programming already. Doesn’t mean anything except that they had strong Scouting programming. Again, this isn’t a legal matter — it is one way to tie all of the programs together better.

The current wording as far as Cub Scouting is concerned has only been around since the early 70s (that’s when “to be square” was replaced with “to help other people”). That’s not 80 years….more like 40 or so…

As far as the Venturing Oath, since Venturing has only been around for 14 years; and since much of the Oath originated with the Explorer Code, which that was written in the late 50s, I would say that the Venturing Oath has only been with us a little longer (14 or 60 years, take your pick)

The Cub Program was just re-invented and pushed out to the masses with the release of Cub Scouting 2010. We haven’t even crossed over the 1st group to experience the program since the beginning to Boy Scouts. Why couldn’t this be addressed with those changes?

As a Cub Leader and current Pack Committee Chair, it’s quite frustrating to attend District or Council functions with the majority of Boy Scouters and when it comes time to recite oathes and promises, it’s always the Boy Scout Oath & Promise. Some consistency would be nice. However, more needs to be done within the Cub Program to make the difference in membership and ultimately the communities that the programs serve.

First, ALL BSA programs need to embrace that Cub Scouting mattters and that it’s important. The Cub Program, as a FAMILY program has the opportunity to reach all members of the househould, not just the Cub. While my Council is BEGINNING to focus a lot of it’s professional resources on Cubs, it’s not picking the momentum up within the District. There’s resistance from the “Old Timers” who like things as they are. It’s difficult to cheerfully administer a program that, for all intents and purposes, really doesn’t matter in the eyes of the Troop Leaders. Nothing a Cub Scout earns, except for the AOL, crosses with the Scout. There is a real disconnect with the bridging and a better job could be done with preparing volunteers to help with that.

I’d like to see a comprehensive orientation program for new families, regardless when their child begins a BSA program, provided and presented by Council (for uniformity with National standards) that explains the BSA History, Goals, Mission, Advancement Trails and age requirements and why each program exists. Also, a detailed explanation of the expected behavior by both parents and children should be addressed. Leaving this type of orientation to volunteers within a specific program tends to omit a lot of important information.

These items would make life much easier on both professional and volunteers alike.

Stephanie: I’m curious because I’ve heard this comment before in other forums; and as one of the BSA’s uniforming and insignia volunteers, this gained my attention:

You wrote in part:

“Nothing a Cub Scout earns, except for the AOL, crosses with the Scout. There is a real disconnect with the bridging and a better job could be done with preparing volunteers to help with that.”

Can you give me some examples of other awards and items which should “cross over with the Cub Scout” when he becomes a Boy Scout?

Keep in mind that much of what a Cub Scout earns as a Cub Scout, there is a Boy Scout “version” or option to earn; and other items are not “crossed over” simply because there has to be space for Boy Scouting-type items.

But there are PLENTY of items which the Cub Scout earns as a Cub Scout (other than the Arrow of Light, Cub Scouting’s highest rank) which *does indeed* transfers off his Cub Scout uniform and onto his Boy Scout uniform (from left to right):

– Council Shoulder Patch (CSP) unless he’s going to be a Boy Scout in a different Council.
– Year pin (there should be one…the highest year he has spent as a Cub Scout with a yellow backing)
– Youth Religious emblem “square knot emblem” with a Cub Scout (or perhaps two Cub Scout) program device on the knot emblem denoting that he earned his faith’s religious emblem as a Cub Scout or as a WEBELOS Cub Scout
– the Arrow of Light emblem
– an Interpreter Strip (if he earned one)
– his favorite temporary emblem (centered on the right pocket of his Scout uniform until he changes his mind and wants something else temporarily there as a Boy Scout)
– and more than likely his Den medallion which will become his Patrol medallion

I think Stephanie’s point wasn’t so much the patches but the “earning” portion of her statement.
Cub and Boy Scouts are treated almost as two distinct groups. The Whittlin’ chit, for example, doesn’t apply in Boy Scouts but must be re-earned as a Totin’ Chit. (at least in my troop. not sure about national rules). Service hours from Cubs to Troop probably don’t transfer. The AoL helps in earning the Boy Scout Badge but doesn’t substitute for it.
It’s the disconnect that a Cub is almost starting over again at Troop level that’s at issue and which I do see needing improvement. It’s not seemless, it’s an uphill struggle with retention. And in our District, Cub Scouts are sometimes an afterthought.
It’s not broken but it certainly could use improving.

Mike, you hit the nail right on the head. I think the boys look forward to earning more insignia for their Boy Scout uniforms and we are careful to advise exactly what can be transferred over to the Troop uniform. However, it’s the “starting over” portion that becomes a sticking point. All of your examples are what I was referring to.

Since service hours, camping nights and leadership roles are a HUGE part of advancement in the Troop, I’d like to see more emphasis placed on these items in Cubs. Perhaps a “Diploma” of some sort with all of these things itemized for the Cub to present to the Troop for some sort of recognition. Perhaps this diploma could be used to receive a “quicker” advancement to Tenderfoot. This shouldn’t be a problem because the Scouts who participate in these areas in the Pack will be the ones who advance within the Troop at a faster rate anyway.

Much of the focus in Scouting is at the Boy Scout age and I believe there are studies showing that it’s the CUB SCOUT age that needs to be sought and hooked to improve retention and create a Scout for Life.

I think there is definately a notion that Cub Scouting ends and Boy Scouting begins that causes us to lose a lot of boys after the Cub Scoutign ends part. It isn’t looked at as a continuum for many parents.

I posted a 110% approval for this earlier without any explanation. Please let me afirm why I think this is a good move. As a previous cub scout, den leader, Webelo Leader, District Chair, ASM, and now Scout Master I think this makes perfect sense. Look at it from a parent and cub scout perspective first, they see the results of the multiple oaths first hand at pack meetings. Have you ever watched those Webelo II boys muck up the Cub Scout Promise at a Pack Meeting? “Well, see we are now using the Boy Scout Oath. They have to learn it to be Boy Scouts, so we’ve fallen out of practice on the Cub Scout Promise.” Thats the excuse I’ve heard from more than one Cub Master or Webelo leader and its not an excuse its the truth. The transition is rough and the more complicated we make it the more boys we loose.

I do support this theory that the Oath and Law should be the same, and I do recognize that it will be a huge change. I offer though that possibly it should be a progressive Oath. The Cub Scout Oath only being a portion of the existing Boy Scout Oath, and the Venturing Oath adding the parts that make it the Venturing Oath. It would allow for the whole thing to be memorized and learned by all, and allow for added depth to the meaning.

Our organization: the Boy Scouts of America only has one mission: The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

Well if we are ong to have a mission that says we are instilling the values of the Scout Oath and Law in all our youth, then shouldn’t we have that Scout Oath and Law in every program? Just makes sense to me.

I think that all scouts Cubs, Venturers, Sea Scouts, Varsity, Boy Scouts should have ONE unified Oath and Law. As a former cub and boy scout and a former Webelo Den Leader/current ASM – I remember I found it difficult to deal with two oaths and laws. I think it will be easier for the boys to learn it while they are young and grow in understanding as they age. I don’t think anyone would expect Tigers to memorize the Oath and Law, but they can learn to read it/repeat it as well as begin to learn its meaning. I think this would bring a tighter unification of the entire program.

As a Scouter that was involved with the Cub Scout program for years, and is now currently a Scoutmaster and Venture Crew Advisor, I can see this being a tough thing for people to accept if they have been involved for any lenght of time. New Scouters coming into the program will have no problem adjusting to this since they won’t know anything but this. That being said, I do think that it is a good idea. The Cub Scouts may have some difficulty with it but I don’t think it should be a big problem if it is part of their weekly routine. If the program wants to have flow and continuity between all branches, as it should, then this is a move in the right direction. Each program should not have any difficulty retaining their own identity, because the program areas are designed to accomodate the appropriate age and skill level. But, when these programs overlap and interact it will be nice to see everyone able to recite the words together. I think it will give a connection to the areas that is not felt at this time.

Please, no! Cub Scouts are not confused when they become Boy Scouts and have to learn a new Oath and Law. They feel more grown-up. And they are. Each age group has its own needs, and the current set-up reflects those differences. Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

One oath is a great idea and I look forward to it! In my twelve years as a Cub Scout leader, I’ve met very few cub scouts who remember the Cub Scout promise and law. There’s just as few adult leaders who can remember the promise and law. BUT … almost every Boy Scout adult leader and most scouts have the Scout Oath and Law ingrained and will NEVER forget them.

Plus, mixing the Jungle Book story in the scout ideals is confusing. Most adults and family no longer know the details of the story. They don’t know who’s who in the story. Then to play with the Jungle Book story for a few years only to replace it as a Boy Scout later is confusing.

The biggest reason to me is that the Cub Scout promise and law are more functional than idealistic. The only values statemetns are the same as the Boy Scout Oath and Law. Talking about the “Law of the Pack”, “following Akela” and who helps who go or grow is confusing and distracting.

I support the change for Venturing Crews and Ships but not for Cubs. The older boys definitely need to stay focused on the values contained in the Scut Oath and Law. My observatoin is that it sends an unintended mesaage to the older boys that the Scout Oath and Law only pertains to younger boys and not them. Which is certainly not true. For Cubs, it is too long and too hard to understnad. Young boys connect well to the Cub Scout Promise and Law of the Pack. It is simple and they understand it and if taught right they have fun with it. I have never seen or heard of a Boy Scout who had trouble with the transition.

Venturing is not just for boys, it is also for girls, and it’s a separate program than the Boy Scouts. Youth don’t think that way because they’re not in the same program anymore. If the Varsity Scout oath and law was different, I would understand where you were coming from. But Venturing is NOT the same thing as Boy Scouts.

Do you really think that the Venturing Oath and Code contain no good values?

As a Venturer, I promise to do my duty to God and help strengthen America, to help others, and to seek truth, fairness, and adventure in our world.

As a Venturer, I believe that America’s strength lies in our trust in God and in the courage, strength, and traditions of our people.
I will, therefore, be faithful in my religious duties and will maintain a personal sense of honor in my own life.
I will treasure my American heritage and will do all I can to preserve and enrich it.
I will recognize the dignity and worth of all humanity and will use fair play and goodwill in my daily life.
I will acquire the Venturing attitude that seeks truth in all things and adventure on the frontiers of our changing world.

I have to agree with you on your point that the Oath and Law are probably too long and complicated for Cubs to fully grasp. I admit that I have never really been all that big on the whole jungle book theme, but I also only joined as a Webelos, so that might be part of my individual issue.

I do think that a unification of the Oaths and Laws would be a good thing for everyone concerned, however for the Cubs, I might recommend a shortened version maybe? Dropping those lines/points that are simply beyond most 5-9 year olds.

Maybe something along the lines of:
“On my Honor, I will do my best, to do my duty To God and my Country, and To help Other people.”
and
“A Scout is Trustworthy, Helpful, Friendly, Kind, Cheerful, Brave, and Reverent”

The Tiger Cubs once had their own separate motto and promise, and it WAS confusing when they became part of the Pack and the other boys were saying a very different set of words. So, the Tiger Promise and Motto were phased out, and that was appropriate because it made no sense to have separate promises in the same room full of young boys. However, the Cub Promise IS age-appropriate, and we teach its meaning as they grow up. Then, as Webelos Scouts, they learn what it’s like to be Boy Scouts, and learn the time-honored words of the oath and law. I was thrilled and proud the first time my Webelos repeated the Boy Scout words and took them as their own, and when I left the pack after 7 years I left them with those 12 words, representing what their sons were becoming through scouting. Although we certainly have the same goals and ultimate purposes, Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts are very different organizations, and I feel that separate promises and mottos are very well justified and should remain.
Genny White, Great Plains District Tiger Lady, 1992-2013

In my oppinion, one of the main reasons (obviously not the only on thou) that we’re losing so many boys when transitioning between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts is because we’re losing the distinction between the two. Cubs are doing so many things that use to be in the provence of Boy Scouts (like camping and being Webeloes for a year). Now we’re talking about blurring the line even more. I say keep the Cub Scout promise and law as it is and let them look forward to becoming Boy Scouts.

I disagree with the camping. Cubs have always had some degree of ‘camping’. While it may be occasional ‘cabin camping’ at first and eventually to more frequent ‘tent camping’ and maybe a summer resident camp – it is still quite different than camping with a Boy Scout Troop, and in my observation of Packs versus Troops camping over the past several years, there is a clear difference and an escalation when moving from Cub Scouting to Boy Scouting.

I thought the reason they lost so many boys was more due to burn-out and increased interest in alternative activities? We lose between 30-50% in most transitions after one year, and the number one cause for us is sports. Hockey, baseball, football, and more are becoming nearly year-round programs in our area. Even at the 6th grade level. It’s hard to compete when a kid has dreams of the majors.

It is my belief that for Cubs, the Boy Scout Oath and Law has too many “cerebral” concepts to be understood by a 6+ year old – while they understand and grow into the Cub Scout Promise and Law of the Pack. Once the scouts reach Webelos, they begin to learn and discuss the concepts contained within the oath and law, and memorize them as a TRANSITION to Boy Scouts – it makes them feel like they have accomplished something special, and are moving into something new, different, and special… I say keep them separate. (For venturing, I don’t necessarily see why that would need to be different – it’s still scouts, and so the Oath and Law should still be part of that program – but Cubs NEED to stay different, and AGE approriate.

Boyd,
You are thinking like a Cub Scout leader- I will fight for MY program but not for the others because I don”t understand them.. (at least that is how it comes across- Please dont take offense because that is not how it is intended)

Here is why the programs (ALL PROGRAMS) need to stay separated.. Think about all the differences between the Cub program and Boy Scout program. Now multiply them by two and make them Co-Ed and that is the difference between the Boy Scout Program and the Venturing Program. Add to that that there are TONS of Cubs, so they aren’t threatening to take away the Cub handshake and salute. But lets pretend that they are and layer THAT onto a program that has been badly neglected by the National Council and is JUST NOW starting to develop its own brand identity.

Venturing is not STILL SCOUTS. We aren’t Venturing Scouts, we are Venturers. We have a different Program. We have a different program structure and a different aims and methods- we even TALK about those different aims and methods in Woodbadge.

THIS is the reason that people are so willing to tear down the walls- if even well informed scouting leaders dont understand the differences in the programs, then we need to spend less time making them look the same and more time getting the word out.

I like having separate a separate oath/promise and law/code for the different programs; it highlights that the programs are separate and distinct. I’ve seen too many Venturing youth and leaders who ignore the Venturing program and treat that program as simply another stage of Boy Scouts where they are still working on rank advancements and merit badges. Having the same Oath and Law for Venturers would simply strengthen that misconception.

Ronald,
Technically Venturing is “a youth development program of the BSA” in the same way the Boy Scouts is a separate, distinct program from Venturing and Cub Scouts.
I know what you are trying to get at: Venturing is a sub-program of Boy Scouts, but that’s not quite accurate. In some cases it does work that way, but in many other crews, the crew operates very differently and quite independently of other Boy Scout programs.
I have an easy answer for this: Ask Venturers nationwide to vote (just like in the crews– no votes for adults) and see what they say. Should be pretty easy for National to set up a nationwide poll and ask Venturing leaders to send to their Crew Leadership, and from them to their crews.

John, Read what the BSA define it as. I’d rather understand what the organization says it is vs someones opinion of what it is or what it should be. Read the link. Maybe this is why the change, some people operating outside of what it was the program was designed for & this will attempt to get the goals standardized.

The Boy Scouts of America, as an organization, contains three different divisions: Cub Scouts (including Tiger Cubs), Boy Scouts (including Varsity Scouts), and Venturing (including Sea Scouts). When I referred earlier to Venturing being a different program than Boy Scouts I meant the Boy Scout program, not the larger organization (BSA).

Each of the different divisions within the BSA is unique and separate in many ways from the other divisions. Each division has its own uniform, awards structure, methods, and (so far) it’s own oath/promise and law/code.

Cub Scouting has always been tied closely with Boy Scouting, with one of its purposes being to prepare younger boys to become Boy Scouts when they get old enough. The same is not true for Venturing. There is nothing in the Boy Scout program that suggests that the next step, so to speak, is Venturing. It is a separate program (within the same organization) that serves what is often a different audience (young women).

Some more information: the term Boy Scout is sometimes ambiguous. It can refer to the Boy Scout program of the BSA or to the BSA as a whole.

Cub Scouting is closely associated with Boy Scouting because there is no overlap of the programs, and individuals are encouraged to transfer from Cub Scouting to Boy Scouting.

Venturing, on the other hand, overlaps with the Boy Scouting program, and also includes individuals who are ineligible for the Boy Scouting program. Venture Scouts, however, are a subgroup in the Boy Scouting program which is essentially the Venturing eligible members of Boy Scouting but not an actual part of Venturing. This last part is what I believe leads to confusion over Venturing being part of Boy Scouting within the BSA and not a separate program.

If you start revising the program in one area, you then end up finding the need to change something else to compensate for the first change and so on and so forth. ( like the above statement to change the Mission Statement ?) I think it is foolish to even consider such a change. There is a progression in Scouting that works the way it is. It is a building process, it is age appropriate and meaningful for the Scouts at the different levels they encounter. Retention is important; however, recruiting is far more important if we want to increase the number of Scouts in the program. We compete with so many other activities out there. Maybe the BSA should run ads? If we as volunteers help the youth to have as much FUN as possible, they will stay. Memories will be built that last a lifetime.

Having been a Girl Scout and Explorer, Girl Scout leader from Daisy to Juniors, Tiger, Cub and Webelos leader, I can not support this change. Those tiger cubs have enough trouble learning the prpmise let alone 12 points of the Scout Law. What is the readability level of the Scout Oath and Promise, i’m sure it is not First Grade!

Word memorization is easy but meanings are the hard part. It needs to be learned. Just like the Pledge of Allegiance… Whet is reading level of the Pledge? In grade school you don’t know the meanings at first, you learn as you grow & develop.

Why have a single pledge for the city flag, the state flag, and the national flag?

There are three different Oaths because there are three completely different programs. They all have the same basic BSA core values, but approach them in a way tailored to their specific members.

This proposal isn’t about changing the Cub Scout and Venturing Oaths with the Boy Scout Oath – it’s about getting rid of all three program oaths, the Cub Scout, Venturing, and Boy Scout Oath, and instead using a single organization oath, the BSA Oath, which just happens to be the same as the old Boy Scout Oath.

You started talking about the Pledge of Allegiance and then mentioned three different pledges. I assumed national/state/city was a reasonable breakdown for three pledges. It seems I was wrong and I apologize for attempting to figure out what you were saying. Could you clarify which three Pledges you were referring to?

Please, do not make a single oath & law. After decades in scouting I think this would be a weong choice. We offer a deliniation between the children of Scouting in Cub Scouting to the maturing young men of Boy Scouting. Viewed in an Ages & Stages mindset, the Cubs can understand the values associated with their Promise & Law of the Pack. The Oath & Law of the Boy Scouting I believe would be too hard of a value interpretation for Tigers and Cubs. We begin that transition in Webelos, which is probably the earliest the higher level thinking processes are mature enough to process it.

Sure memorization is the easy part. But what happens when the words dont convey the meaning that you hope to achieve?

Look at the Venturing Oath and Code:
As a Venturer, I promise to do my duty to God and help strengthen America, to help others, and to seek truth, fairness, and adventure in our world.

As a Venturer, I believe that America’s strength lies in our trust in God and in the courage, strength, and traditions of our people.
I will, therefore, be faithful in my religious duties and will maintain a personal sense of honor in my own life.
I will treasure my American heritage and will do all I can to preserve and enrich it.
I will recognize the dignity and worth of all humanity and will use fair play and goodwill in my daily life.
I will acquire the Venturing attitude that seeks truth in all things and adventure on the frontiers of our changing world.

That is has really deep and rich meaning- and the best part is that it was written by youth. These words convey a very mature understanding of a young person’s place in our world, and they are exceptionally high ideals to live up to. Most adults cant convey, in such a few short words, a more eloquent code to live up to, that addresses religion, personal honor, treating others as you want to be treated, and just being a nice person. This should be admired, not done away with. No amount of streamlining or good marketing can compete with this.

It’s also overly long. An oath, like a Mission Statement, should be concise and meaningful. It should capture the imagination – just a little bit – and be understood by those both hearing and speaking it.

I’m all for the concept of simplifying the Venturing Oath a bit. I’m not sold on the need to do complicate something for Cub Scouts though.

I really don’t think you could make the Venturing Oath any more simple. I like it, I think it reflects the Venturing program and those youth the program serves. The code may be a bit long, but I like it also and do not want to see it changed.

Linda and Betty raise important points. When the possibility of making this change came up, the first thing we did was look into these very questions and recruit some experts in education to help. It turns out that there is very little difference in readability between the current Cub and Scout versions. We also found that, because the Scout Oath uses more concrete language than the Law of the Pack, it may actually be easier for younger boys to understand. Of course, they will not get the full impact of the Scout Oath and Law as Tigers, any more than they do currently. Nor do we expect our youngest members to memorize their Oath and Law, either currently or in the future. They start by repeating after the leader, then start to learn the basics of what the words mean, and gradually gain understanding as they get older. With either Oath and Law, the process is the same. Ages and Stages still applies, with the boys gaining greater understanding as they gain maturity–as they do with many things in life.

Rest assured that the conversation would not have continued if research had shown a substantial learning issue. I too was taught that the Cub Promise and Law of the Pack were “age appropriate”. It turns out, however, that this was probably someone’s opinion or best guess and is not supported by measures of learning.

So the question becomes, does it make sense to focus our efforts on the stated mission of the B.S.A.–to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law. I believe it does. But this does not suggest that programs in all the handbooks will be anything other than age-appropriate. They will always be age-appropriate. As with any learning, we must start with the most basic pieces of understanding and build upon them.

On a personal note, I’ve been a member for over 50 years and had positions in Cubs, Scouts, District, and Council, and am the son and father of Eagle Scouts. I’m very concerned about maintaining the traditions of Scouting. But I also embrace the concept changing when it makes sense for better serving youth–as Scouting has done throughout its history.

John Savage,
411 Team Member–Chair of the Outdoor Skills and Adventure Track & Chair of the Oath/Law Study

John,
Thanks for coming on this forum to talk about the “why”. I’m glad that you consulted education experts in looking at the One Oath, and thank you for your years of service. But I am disappointed that it appears you didn’t talk to the core of the Venturing Program– the Venturers themselves. I know there were some Venturers involved in this TF, but I guess I mean the large number of rank-and-file Venturers across the country. An informal poll of our crew found one Youth who thought this was okay– and a large majority who do not. From the BSA website the core mission of the BSA is ” to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes” and then it adds “by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law”. It doesn’t say “by making them say the Scout Oath and Law”. If the values are contained by the Venturing Oath, how is forcing Venturers to change what they say going to advance the mission? Does the Venturing Oath NOT help instill values in young people to make ethical and moral choices?? I think perhaps the Task Force got caught up in a drive towards standardization, and lost sight of the objective– and the audience– that says these Oaths.
Yours in Venturing, John Hearing

John,
From your comment, I think I should clarify one thing. Our group was asked only to look at the Oath & Law question related to Cub Scouts. There is a separate Venturing Task Force which made the recommendation related to Venturing. I do not have input to or from that Task Force, but I understand it is made up of Venturing leaders. Hope this helps.
John Savage

In my experience, the Venturers and leaders involved in the Venturing program at Council, Area, and National levels have a much different view of the program compared to Venturers and leaders who only get involved on the unit level. My unit-venturers are generally less than interested in the activities and outings run by council-venturers.

As I’ve mentioned before, you can provide comments and suggestions to the task force by sending a message to 411@scouting.org and Venturing specific questions/comments will go to the Venturing Task Force. I wish the 411 people joining the discussion here would mention that fact.

Between Boy Scouts and Cub scouts I think it would be a good idea. My younger son was not even a tiger when we had to bring him back to our Council’s camp area several times (maybe about 8 times). His older brother would read the scout law on signs as we went up the driveway. He also taged along to a couple of Wood Badge Beading ceremonies (about 4). That fall out of all the boys in my tiger den the one I had the hardest time with learning the cub scout promise and law was my son. He kept saying the boy scout one. To this day he will periodically glitch it up (and say the boy scout one). At least now he is a Webelos Scout and we now encourage the boys to learn the Boy Scout ones.

As a Webelos leader, it really frusterating when I get a new boy in the den and I have to get him to learn the Cub Scout promise and law (for bobcat) and them immediately tell him to put that one off to the side you need to start learning the boy scout one.

Like it was pointed out earlier, most of our boys have not read the Jungle Book.

I imagine if leaders are having trouble with unfamiliarity with the Jungle Book, they can do something about that – summarize the book, read the book out loud, ask the kids to read the book, do a dramatic presentation, etc. It almost seems that the problem is that adult leaders don’t want to teach kids about the Jungle Book even though it is ingrained in Cub Scouting.

For sentimental reasons, I find the thought of changing the Cub Scout motto and oath saddening. But, are sentimental reasons enough? So, I asked my Tenderfoot Scout. After all, he just made the transition. He said the oath/promise could be changed without compromising any understanding by the younger cubs (obviously my translation), because it is so close in wording. In fact, he favored that.

He went on to say the whole “follows Akela” thing could be discarded. The only part he took any issue with was whether the Tiger Cubs would be able to memorize the big words and understand the 12 points of the law and would that be frustrating to them. The example I might offer up is how many of us (adult leaders) could memorize the first 12 elements of the Periodic Table of Elements and would that be frustrating?

I don’t claim to have the answers, simply perspective and best wishes to everyone.

As a Venturing Leader and a Scouter for over 30 years, I would like to take a couple moments and chime in on my opinions on the discussions to change the Venturing Code and Oath to align it with the Scout Law and Promise.

Without beating around the bush too much, I am cautiously supportive, but I want to add a few thoughts to make sure that the change is looked at with the best interests of the program, and with that the volunteers who work tirelessly to make it a reality as well.

As you may have seen, Venturing Leaders for the most part are very resistant to change, and it is for good reason. While most folks will tell you that Venturing is the “New Program” of the BSA being only 14 years old, it actually is the most current iteration of a program that was conceived by E. Urner Goodman in the 1930’s. While his concept of “Senior Scouting” worked a little differently than how modern day Venturing does, the changes are not much more significant or drastic as any of the changes that fell on Cub Scouting or Boy Scouting in the same period of time, except for one major difference. In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s William Spurgeon led the charge to create “Career Awareness Exploring” which was an offshoot of the “Explorer (Exploring)” program, and while certainly the High Adventure aspects of Exploring were vastly overshadowed, the relevance of the program to the individual Boy Scout Troops was all but eliminated. While it was perhaps a good idea in the 1960’s to radically change the program, the price was the relationship that up until that point fed the overall Exploring program.

Fast forward to 1998, as the changes to Exploring loomed, it made sense to roll Sea Exploring and High Adventure Exploring back under one umbrella, and at the time it was toted as “something new” and so the history of Venturing “began” at that time, without any ties to its origins or heritage as a result, the relevancy of the program to the Boy Scout Troops has not really ever been repaired. In fact, national support for the most part is limited to some collateral calling Venturing “Scouting’s Next Step.” Today with 14 years under its belt, Venturing still is looked at by many as a “distraction” which hinders its overall growth and weakens its ability to flourish.

So my suggestion is that if we are going to make changes to Venturing, let’s do it right. With that in mind, I’d like to make the following suggestions to consider.

· We need to promote the fact that the origins of Venturing is nearly 80 years old, and not 14. There is a wealth of history there which we’ve forgotten about, and the lack of promoting that history has affected the credibility of an amazing program. The better we do at promoting where Venturing has been, will pay off in dividends when educating Troop leadership on the value of Venturing.
· An effort should be made to install some kind of “crossover” from Troops to Crews. This will enable both units to collaborate more, much like the model we see in place now with Packs and Troops. This will encourage better advancement through all programs.
· Encourage Venturers to work with Cub Scouting more by placing a greater emphasis on Den Chiefs. Often children begrudgingly follow leaders who are about the same age, and this is where Venturing can play a huge part in not only providing great leaders to Cubs, but to prepare those leaders to be stronger adults as well. This will offer the added benefit of generating excitement in the young Cubs to “go the distance” into Venturing.
· Revert the “Venture Patrol” name back to the “Leadership Corps.” The biggest reason here is due to the confusion created by both programs having such similar names. The previous iteration of “Leadership Corps” makes more sense in the application of the program to Troops, and makes the transition between the current programs easier on all levels.
· Better utilize Venturing to capture the 21-25 year old segment. Right now we don’t do very much to capitalize on the outgoing “youth” from Venturing, in that all we really can do is make them “Alumni.” This lets go of our well-trained members and frees them with the hopes they will come back some day. And admittedly sometimes they do. However if we had a more formalized vehicle to retain those leaders, similar to UK’s Scout Network where leadership was taught and encouraged, these young adults would have purpose and encouragement to stick with Scouting after they age out.
· Seek to heal the rift between the OA and Venturing. In reality, the OA and Venturing both have the same founder. Back in the 30’s to 50’s, a “Senior Scout” was a “Scout” and once he achieved First Class could be considered for the OA. Modern day Venturers are often Scouts who moved over. However it is very common to see Scouts afraid of joining Venturing because they fear they will become ineligible for the OA. While I certainly can’t speak for Dr. Goodman, in my 25 years of being an Arrowman, I’d be hard pressed to believe that his intention was for it to work this way. I’d bet we could find a solution if an effort was made to find it, and we should be steadfast in that quest. It will help all of the programs harmonize, and will bring us back to what Dr. Goodman intended.

Scouting teaches us that we need to do our best, and in so doing, change is an expectation. So my hope is that we do our best to make the right changes to make this program better in the years to come, and I suspect that that vision is within us all.

Separate Oaths for separate programs! Just as we have different uniforms at each of the 3 levels (and I’d like to see Cub Scout Leaders in Cub Scout Leader uniforms, not Boy Scout Uniforms), we need to be age-appropriate.
I was a Cub Scout nearly 60 years ago… no camping (well, back-yard camping only, although we never did it). Cub Scouts at age 8, Boy Scouts at age 11. I was an Explorer at 15, and an Assistant Scoutmaster at 18.
Age 6 is too young to be a Cub Scout. Tigers were originally independent of Cub Scouts, attending 1 or 2 Pack meetings a year. (I helped organize the first Tiger Group in Indiana, when the uniform was an iron-on that camp 2 to a packet.) Webelos was a 1 year program for most of Cub Scouting, being 2 years only the last 20 years or so. The other writers who talked about blurring the lines was correct; the differences are less important, and many of the things boys want are pushed earlier and earlier. Keep Venturing separate, too. In our Crew (10 years as Advisor), most of our members were not former Boy Scouts, they were former Girl Scouts. Don’t force more on them than necessary. The Venturing Oath is terrific!

My resume is almost identical the Mike’s. Cub Scouts at 8 in 1954, Boys Scouts at 11 going all the way to Eagle, (sorry to say no Explorer or Venture experience), Assistant Scoutmaster, than on to Scoutmaster and currently a Unit Commissioner.

My only correction to Mr. Homrighaus’ comments is that back than Webelos was only a 6 month progam, not 1 year. You started at 8 as a Bobcat and advanced to Wolf, than at 9 you became a Bear and than at 10 you became a Lion. The Lion rank lasted for 6 months and than you moved on to Webelos.

I concur completely with everything else Mike says. Keep each of these programs unique. Less Boy Scout activities for Cubs, not more. As P.T. Barnum said “Always leave them wanting more”. Let the kids see what’s over the horizon in the Boy Scout program when they’re in Webelos, but don’t let our Cub Scouts become just a smaller version of Boy Scouts.

Who comes up with this idiocy? You mean the word “Scout” isn’t enough to reinforce the linkage between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts? Moving from the Cub Scout Promise and Law of the Pack to the Scout Oath and Law is a useful transition, one that shows new Scouts very quickly and definitively they have grown from Cubs to Boy Scouts. This is a transition most are proud to make and I have seen few (if any) that had a problem learning the new material.

This proposed change looks like yet another solution looking for a problem.

I say leave it alone, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I remembered the CS promise even when I was in the Army it is a part of who I am, even if I don’t think about it all the time. The CS promise and law reinforce the scout learning, and that the family is a part of that learning. When they transition to Webelos, Boy Scouts they get the sense of accomplishment. It helps them realize they are growing up and makes them look forward to learning the new laws and oaths. My kid now, a Webelos 1 thinks it is great that he is learning what the big kids learn. My Wolf scout wants to learn it too, but I tell him he has to earn the priviledge by earning the ranks. As far as the comments about not letting CS camp, I teach my pack, that as Cub Scouts they can only go camping with their family, but as Boy Scouts they go camping with only a few Scout leaders and their patrol, no parents. They talk about the day they are big enough to camp alone ( with their patrol). I think unifying the oath and law would take away from the program and make it a little boring.

I don’t really like the proposed change. Brian. Littrel posted the best words about this, “I say leave it alone, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. We are the powers that be messing with three programs that work very well and compliment each other. Each one has a separate and unique identity with the uniforms, traditions, Oaths, Codes, Laws and Promises. Don’t strip them of that to make it easier for some adults who don’t want to learn them.

I heard about this at Roundtable a in the last few months and am not in favor. I like the progression of scouting toward an ideal and feel the laws, mottos and promise are stepping stone in the journey. Rather than a series of adventures the program is begining to resemble one long moncromatic tunnel.

Browse by Month

Now on Scoutingmagazine.org

Scouting magazine

Follow Scouting magazine

About

Bryan on Scouting is the official blog of Scouting magazine, a Boy Scouts of America publication. Scouting magazine is published five times a year and is received by 1 million registered adult volunteers.